APRIL 2010 UAH Global Temperature Update: +0.50 deg. C
By Dr. Roy Spencer
The global-average lower tropospheric temperature continues warm: +0.50 deg. C for April, 2010, although it is 0.15 deg. C cooler than last month. The linear trend since 1979 is now +0.14 deg. C per decade.
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS 2009 1 0.252 0.472 0.031 -0.065 2009 2 0.247 0.569 -0.074 -0.044 2009 3 0.191 0.326 0.056 -0.158 2009 4 0.162 0.310 0.013 0.012 2009 5 0.140 0.160 0.120 -0.057 2009 6 0.044 -0.011 0.100 0.112 2009 7 0.429 0.194 0.665 0.507 2009 8 0.242 0.229 0.254 0.407 2009 9 0.504 0.590 0.417 0.592 2009 10 0.361 0.335 0.387 0.381 2009 11 0.479 0.458 0.536 0.478 2009 12 0.283 0.350 0.215 0.500 2010 1 0.649 0.861 0.437 0.684 2010 2 0.603 0.725 0.482 0.792 2010 3 0.653 0.853 0.454 0.726 2010 4 0.501 0.796 0.207 0.634
Arctic temps (not shown) continued a 5-month string of much above normal temps (similar to Nov 05 to Mar 06) as the tropics showed signs of retreating from the current El Nino event. Antarctic temperatures were cooler than the long term average. Through the first 120 days of 1998 versus 2010, the average anomaly was +0.655 in 1998, and +0.602 in 2010. These values are within the margin of error in terms of their difference, so the recent global tropospheric warmth associated with the current El Nino has been about the same as that during the peak warmth of the 1997-98 El Nino.
As a reminder, two months ago we changed to Version 5.3 of our dataset, which accounts for the mismatch between the average seasonal cycle produced by the older MSU and the newer AMSU instruments. This affects the value of the individual monthly departures, but does not affect the year to year variations, and thus the overall trend remains the same as in Version 5.2. ALSO…we have added the NOAA-18 AMSU to the data processing in v5.3, which provides data since June of 2005. The local observation time of NOAA-18 (now close to 2 p.m., ascending node) is similar to that of NASA’s Aqua satellite (about 1:30 p.m.). The temperature anomalies listed above have changed somewhat as a result of adding NOAA-18.
[NOTE: These satellite measurements are not calibrated to surface thermometer data in any way, but instead use on-board redundant precision platinum resistance thermometers (PRTs) carried on the satellite radiometers. The PRT’s are individually calibrated in a laboratory before being installed in the instruments.]
Just as some predicted would happen, this El Niño was weak and of short duration compared with 1998. So the warming will be short-lived, as April begins to verify.
the thing is he is measuring heat, not temperature; he actually measured the current needed to mainatin a stable temperature gradient between his IR detector and a heat sink, but heat in the form of hv is what he is measuring.
He converts heat into temperature and then calculates his anomaly. If one were to place a mirror over Australia the the heat given off by Australia would increase, but the ground temperature would drop.
Indeed, phase transitions of water that cause cooling to the ground could also show up as heat. The calculations, without spectral decomposition, must be very interesting. Even a pair of wide band pass IR filters would help.
Thank you for your comment Derek B.
In the Vostok Ice Core Data there are a number of periods significantly warmer than the current period by about 2c or so. I’m referring to those periods.
While the Vostok data was “written” by humans due to means of extracting ice cores and sampling them recently it is “current” history in that sense. Of course the data is from a very long period of time so it predates all of recorded human history except the discovery of fossilized bones. Really this aspect isn’t relevant.
Yes, it would be nice to learn more about the Vostok Ice Core Data, maybe one of the people more educated on ice core data would be kind enough to fill us in on the details? The precision? The history? What it teaches us about the past and about today? Future ice core projects? How important it is as a proxy? Can it have finer precision? What is it’s maximum resolution? Why is it ignored so much by the alleged climate researchers focused on CO2 nightmarish dooms-day gore scenarios?
The main point I’m attempting to make it that it is a false statement to say that “this month, this year, this decade, this century, whatever” is the warmest period on the record when clearly it’s not since the records obviously includes the Vostok Ice Core Data.
Now maybe they actually mean to say the warmest on record using thermometers or satellites or their favorite data set. If that is the case then they need to be more precise and specify what record they are using otherwise they are, ahem, making a scientifically false statement. The Vostok data proves them wrong.
Worse yet, they are allegedly climate scientists and should know their own field better than you or I.
Maybe I’m just being persnickety about this point but it really annoys me to hear that it’s the “warmest T on record” when clearly it is NOT! As a scientist one must endeavor to speak clearly about ones work and especially carefully about the positive claims one is asserting.
I’m simply asking that the “precision bar be raised” to factual by those making the wild claims of doom and destruction. Not too much to ask. Or maybe it is?
(Oh, on the prior post the grammar on my first sentence was a bit backwards. The second sentence was correctly worded though just in case anyone wondered).
R. Gates at 4:20 pm said:
Meanwhile, back in the real world, 2010 keeps on track to be the warmest year on instrument record…May tropo temps at 14, 000 feet is above 20 year averages every day so far. Where is all this heat coming from?
“warmest year” “at 14,000 feet” That’s YOUR definition of the “real world”? Are there even Sherpas living at that altitude? And “all this heat”? ALL what heat? We have no clue HOW MUCH heat there is at 14,000 feet and if we did we wouldn’t know if it was “a lot” or “a little” more or less than than say in April of 1941, or October of 1934, June of 1543, or May of 341… But of course you KNOW that.
I’d like to add, that I don’t think it is appropriate to say that its’ the warmest T on record when the Vostok Ice Core Data shows otherwise. Even to say it is the warmest T on record in a particular data set can be misleading since it’s made out to be doomsday.
Being misleading in science is a violation of ethics. In case you think that’s just nuts, Richard Feynman is the source of that standard of ethics in science. In Richard Feynman’s own words on scientific ethics:
“But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves–of having utter scientific integrity–is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. “Well,” I said, “there aren’t any.” He said, “Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of this kind.” I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing–and if they don’t want to support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.
One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results.
I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish it at all. That’s not giving scientific advice. ”
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2010/02/19/cargo-cult-science-a-lesson-from-richard-feynman-for-scientists-of-today-to-learn/
It sounds like some alleged climate scientists might be in violation of Richard Feynman’s standards I dare say. Their names are well known.
Bruce Cobb says:
May 5, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Apparently our friend R. Gates has never heard of the PDO. Amazing.
Not amazing. It’s selectivity, i.e., cherry picking.
Pro-AGW humour at sceptics’ expense. It has a frozen pizza quality about it. I wonder how long he’s been waiting to serve it out.
Mate, that’s nuthin’! The 21st Century is well on course to being the hottest century evah on instrumental records!
Global temperatures usually peak about 3 months after the ENSO. This El Nino peaked in mid-December so the usual pattern would have predicted that temperatures peaked in mid-March. That is what the UAH and RSS satellite temps have shown.
The El Nino, however, cooled down fairly slowly in January, February and March so temperatures will also cool down slowly in the 3 month lag fashion.
There is one wild-card here and that is the AMO. Sometime, the AMO spikes in response to an El Nino. This only seems to happen with the larger El Ninos and this one was probably big enough. Looking at the weekly SST series for the AMO region, it appears that the AMO is really spiking this time. This will further slow the cool down so it won’t be until August or so before there is a significant down-turn in global temperatures (to the 0.35C range or so, we’ll be in the 0.5 to 0.45 range until then).
If a La Nina develops (and the AMO cools down closer to normal), temperatures will decline to close to 0.2C by the end of the year.
R. Gates says:
May 5, 2010 at 4:20 pm
“The solar minimum is over, and unless we see some major volcanic activtiy (hundreds of times larger than what we’ve seen in Iceland so far) than the next few years are going to be warmer. The small drop from March to April could very well be from the fading El Nino, but with the solar max ahead of us, we’ve got warming ahead over the next few years as well…”
You mean just like we did after ’98? Whatever happened to, “Weather. Is. Not. Climate?” Or does that only apply to cooling anecdotes?
Bottom line: Call me when I can successfully farm in Greenland using 11th century technology and all of the viking graves are above the permafrost. Until then we’re still in the noise.
Look, I am a geoscientist and have great respect for those who gather data about climate. But when someone tells me that 2010 is warmer than 2007, I reach cognitive dissonance.
Quite simply, I can’t trust these numbers anymore and I will ignore them.
April ’98 was significantly warmer.
And with that, 2010 slips under 1998 for the honor, and I suspect will not challenge 1998 any longer for warmest year on record.
I do not believe for a second that March was the warmest in history. Both Siberia and Britain reported record cold. China reported colder than normal weather. Antarctica experienced record cold. The arctic circle experienced a normal ice extent, with particularly cold weather in the Baltic. Norway was slightly warmer than normal. Barely measurable. Australia and Canada reported warm weather. The former easily match the latter for area. The map heat areas seem to be most prevalent where there are no thermometers.
Today was 15 degrees warmer than last night, 20 degrees warmer than last week, and a full 60 degrees warmer than four months ago. And I’m glad for that!!!!! I can now stop burning oil to stay warm. Soon I’ll burn electricity to stay cool.
It’s 8 degrees cooler than it was 2.5 hours ago. No joke. My wife watches the temps hourly.
The pipeline has burst and all that dark heat is spilling out.
Dr. Spencer, I appreciate what you’re doing. But, likely, like many here, I’ve got some questions. I could and have (in some cases) looked it up myself, but I prefer to hear it “from the horses mouth” as it were. What exactly are you measuring? Are you really measuring the earth’s surface? What technology is employed? Do clouds interfere? Is there an algorithm in place to adequately account for interference? In other words, I’m woefully ignorant of your work. Mercury thermometers, I got that. Your work, I need to know more about it before it can be embraced as knowledge.
Today (May 5) we had mixed rain and snow at 800 ft. above sea level in the Walla Walla Valley (Southeastern Washington State). The snow line in the nearby Blue Mountains came down to 1500 ft. I have lived in the Walla Walla Valley off and on for the past 40 years and this is latest in the spring that I have ever seen the snow here.
David L says:
May 5, 2010 at 7:01 pm
It’s 8 degrees cooler than it was 2.5 hours ago. No joke. My wife watches the temps hourly.
See, proof positive of climate change!!!! If you buy big Al’s absolution credits, you’ll be ok!!!! And then, problem solved, and you can then claim virtue over the less pious polluters!!!!
James Sexton,
Go to Roy Spencer’s website. He patiently explains many of the answers to the questions you have. Then you will want to read his books!
Denis
What exactly are you measuring?
Microwave reflections.
Are you really measuring the earth’s surface?
No. Lower troposphere. (And other atmospheric layers as well.)
What technology is employed?
Satellites only. MW readings are converted into temperature, so the measurement is indirect. No ground-based sensors. Polar orbits. Since the sensors look “across” rather than “ahead”, measurement of the poles themselves is not possible.
But it avoids the micro- and mesosite issues with ground sensors. And there’s near-full coverage. It’s probably the best measure available.
Do clouds interfere? Is there an algorithm in place to adequately account for interference?
Yes and yes.
Bob Tisdale says:
May 5, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Somewhat on topic: NINO3.4 SST anomalies (weekly) have dropped below the threshold of an El Nino:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/05/nino34-sst-anomalies-in-neutral.html
______________________________________________________________________
Bob,
Does that mean we have transitioned into la Nada? chuckle
The linear trend since 1979 is now +0.14 deg. C per decade.
Interesting. Raw USHCN surface readings (USA) 1979 – 2008 are over +0.27C/decade. And it’s been warmer since 2008.
I wonder how that could be.
Denis,
Yes, some of that was being provocative, some genuine curiosity. I know and understand he has a website. I also know and understand the enormous weight of maintaining one. (Given the full time job he also has.) However, given the weight of the underlying question, it is requisite that all share and give light to the knowledge they understand to be true. IN FULL LIGHT. But, if a tip is required, here is a tip. If you know, go full, go hard and stand.
@MattN
I agree. After all, El Nino (Modoki is loosing momentum with April lower than March. And look, each month of June to August 1998 was higher compared to April 2010.